Blocked input tax credit for resort construction remains unavailable; interest follows actual utilisation, while delayed payment attracts statutory pe...
Duplicate PAN allocation requires record verification and deactivation reasons before assessment-related transactions can be attributed to an assessee...
Faceless assessment safeguards require requested personal hearings and adequate final show-cause response time, failing which reassessment is required...
The appellant provided two services - servicing of motor vehicles and running an amusement park. The amusement park service was exempt from service tax until 1.6.2015. After that, it became taxable but the appellant did not pay service tax, claiming it was covered under the negative list or exemption. However, the tribunal held that the amusement park service was not covered under the negative list or exemption after 1.6.2015 and hence taxable. Regarding the time limitation, the tribunal held that since the appellant had a bona fide belief of non-taxability and the revenue did not scrutinize the returns, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The demand for short payment of service tax under repairs and maintenance services was also time-barred. The tribunal set aside the confirmed demand of Rs. 72,94,797/- towards reversal of CENVAT credit on merits, relying on court rulings that revenue cannot demand reversal without asking for proportionate reversal. The total confirmed demand of Rs. 1,73,60,105/- was set aside due to limitation. The appeal was allowed.
The appellant provided two services - servicing of motor vehicles and running an amusement park. The amusement park service was exempt from service tax until 1.6.2015. After that, it became taxable but the appellant did not pay service tax, claiming it was covered under the negative list or exemption. However, the tribunal held that the amusement park service was not covered under the negative list or exemption after 1.6.2015 and hence taxable. Regarding the time limitation, the tribunal held that since the appellant had a bona fide belief of non-taxability and the revenue did not scrutinize the returns, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. The demand for short payment of service tax under repairs and maintenance services was also time-barred. The tribunal set aside the confirmed demand of Rs. 72,94,797/- towards reversal of CENVAT credit on merits, relying on court rulings that revenue cannot demand reversal without asking for proportionate reversal. The total confirmed demand of Rs. 1,73,60,105/- was set aside due to limitation. The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
